that it came to bee used by the Fathers that lived 300. yeers after the Apostles as much saith A. R. in his Childish baptisme But say Cassander spoke as Proposition 4. hee is said to doe yet that proveth not that children of the faithfull were commonly first instructed ere baptized because some beleevers deferred baptisme or Tertullian and Gregory counselled it much lesse that this was well done according to Christs mind for wee have seene upon what unsound principles they did it and as for the Councell of Tertullian and Gregory it hath been before weighed of what force herein As for the other speech of Cassander that Pedobaptisme came in use by the Fathers 300. yeeres after the Apostles time it maketh mee stand and wonder at the impudent forehead of errour and yet I might wonder the lesse since it 's but just with God that they which hold lies should also tell lies I read Cassander with as much heed as I could to finde out whether there might bee any colour of ground of such a speech of him but could not finde out any like it unlesse that which hee saith bee this way wrested scil that the Apostles in the beginning by the command and charge of the Lord set up their worke and did every where constitute Churches gathered of the Gentiles to the Communion of the Gospel growne ones which consented to the Apostles doctrine after confession of the faith were without any distinction of times or places knit unto the Church of Christ by the Sacrament of Baptisme administred by the Disciples of the Apostles But saith also in the next words although even at that time it is to be beleeved that Infants also and especially sickly ones were offered to bee consecrated by the baptisme of Christ but clearely to evince the falsehood of that speech before cited to confirme Proposition 7. the very title of this booke contradicteth the same George Cassander of Infants baptisme The testimonies of the Ancient Ecclesiasticall writers which flourished within the 300. yeeres from the times of the Apostles that is from the departure of John the Apostles being more then the hundreth yeere from the birth of Christ And according to this his worke that hee propoundeth hee bringeth in very notable testimonies of the antients both Latine and Greeke that lived in that space for the proofe of Paedobaptisme that any that had not sâ—ene authorities before might have been thence well furnished for this purpose and after the testimonies produced Cassander closeth thus These are the testimonies of ancient Fathers which wee suppose are sufficient for the deciding of this controversie of childrens baptisme which hath been raised up by certaine wretched persons for in as much as all these whose testimonies wee have produced in a continued series from the Apostles were Orthodox teachers and guiders of Churches of Christ at severall times and places there is no question but that this Tenent being held forth by them all severally as with one mouth it was the very doctrine of the whole Church which the Church had received from the Apostles and transmitted the same to those in after times and upon the speech of Austin l. 4. contra Donat. c. 13 14. addeth To this Apostolicall doctrine of baptisme of Infants all the Apostolique Churches planted by the Apostles throughout the whole world they doe give testimony c. Who seeth not now the grosnesse of this falshood in fathering that upon Cassander the very contrary whereunto is his businesse there to evince SECT V. Zwinglius THe next testimony is of as grand an adversarie to Anabaptisme as any and that is Zuinglius who is quoted to confirme the 4th and 6th Proposition hee is said to affirme that there is no plaine word in Scripture whereby childrens baptisme is commanded his meaning is no more then thus that it is not in so many words said you shall baptize children as neither the first day of the weeke shall bee to you the Lords day or Christian Sabbath c. but the principall place and for the other two quotations they are to no purpose is that mentioned in his booke of Articles Act. 18. whose words because the treatise is so often tripping wee shall set downe verbatim who there speaking of Confirmation saith although I am not ignorant as it may bee gathered out of the Ancients that of old time Infants were baptized this is rendred otherwise in the Treatise and yet not so common as now it is but the children were alwayes instructed openly and when their faith had made impression upon their hearts and they confessed with their mouthes then they were admitted to baptisme this custome of teaching I wish were used and recalled now namely that baptisme being given to Infants they may bee afterwards taught when they come to age as they are capable of instruction from the Word of God this the Treatise leaveth out Zwinglius his judgment was that the maine in the childs right to baptisme was the Parents Covenant estate whence the child being federally holy which else had been uncleane had its maine title to baptisme so that in case both parents were visibly Pagans or Idolatrous c. they were not to bee baptized when yet in his time many such were baptized And thus I take it is that which hee intendeth that since in Ancient times albeit sometimes every little children of Infidels as may appeare were baptized yet not so commonly as now such like children are baptized promiscuously hand over head for which some as it appeares by Beza upon 1 Cor. 7. 14. have pleaded albeit hee counts it their errour ibid. and since in those times Catechising as it appeareth of children was too little in use Zwinglius maketh that use of the Catechising of children of old both of persons joyned to the Church which were capable of instruction when first their parents joyned in Church estate before their baptisme which was one sort of children so catechised and of the exposititious children of Pagans also those children of their Pagan captive or slaves which were another sort of children catechized before baptisme Zwinglius wisheth that albeit it were not in his time used as neither before baptisme to such like children so neither after the baptisme neither of such children nor of others of visible beleevers which ought in Infancy to bee baptized yet now catechizing of children might bee in more use Assuredly Zwinglius was strong for this that baptisme of Infants was no practise taken up after the Apostles but by the Apostles no bare old custome taken upon humane grounds but his judgement was directly crosse to the Proposition hee is brought as a witnesse to that Christ did not institute Infants baptisme c. witnesse his many arguments from Scripture for it and his judicious answers to the evasions of the adversaries to that truth And as much may bee said of Oecolampadius his companion who is cited to confirme the 6th Proposition whereas in the first
the children also So of all collectively is that spoken not onely that God that day avouched them to bee his people Deut. 26. 18. both parents and children as also Deut. 30. 16. and 29. but thou hast avouched the Lord to bee thy God Vers 17. thou collective Israel yet it was acted but by the growne part in their own in their childrens stead Abrahams seed is either taken for the head and principall as was Christ and so rather intended Gen. 12. 3. and 22. 18. or for the head and body together even Christ mysticall so Gen. 22. 15. Thy seed shall possesse the gates of thine enemies and so Gal. 3. 16. Jew and Gentile but one seed with Christ the head of the Church Again Abrahams seed is either taken collectively or distributively collectively either his seed by propagation or proportion In the former sense the Jewes in their generations were the seed mentioned Gen. 17. 7. that is parents and children for they are seed in their generations seed by proportion were the Proselytes of old in their generations and visible inchurched beleevers in their generations scil parents and children together And both againe are considered specifically or individually specifically so some of that sort of parents and growne persons and some of that sort of children are as well internally and savingly in the covenant as externally albeit many individuall persons of both sorts are onely externally thus Deut. 29. 14. with him that is here and with him that is not here him not them as noting a collection yea a certaine species or sort of persons growne or babes and of babes borne or unborne according to a different respect of Gods making his covenant with them So in Gen. 17. to thy seed indefinitely God absolutely covenanting thus as Vers 7. with them in their species and sorts conditionally in respect of the individuall persons of each sort Or more briefly the seed of Abraham are either his choyce seed in speciall or his Church seed indefinitely wee consider herein the later and not so much the former SECT II. 1. COnclusion that Covenant Gen. 17. 7. was a Covenant of grace and the same in nature with that Covenant of grace now held forth to us Neither of the branches of this conclusion I think are denyed by the more judicious of our opposites albebeit both have been by some of the more vulgar sort making that covenant in Gen. 17. to bee a Covenant of workes c. that it was a Covenant of grace may appeare by the qualitie of the persons betwixt whom the covenant is made scil not God as a Creator men as innocent as in that covenant of works made with Adam but God as gratious justifying ungodly persons in the sense of the Law or such as cannot become legally godly perfect in themselves or workers covenanting with such like non-workers Rom. 4. 1 2 3 4 5. sâ—il God and Abraham yea God and Isaac yea God and the spirituall seed of Abraham to whom with him the promises indefinitely were made and so this also Gal. 3. 16. 2 By the matter promised on Gods part scil I will bee a God to thee and to thy seed holding forth more then any legall covenant as 1. to tender and give to them his ordinances according as they should bee capable of them as their peculiar priviledge by right of Covenant hence these two coupled Lev. 26. 11 12. Rev. 21. 3. I will bee a God to them I will set my tabernacle amongst them hence any without these or any externall right to them are according to men said to bee without God in the world Eph. 2. 11 12 13. 2 That hee will dwell amongst them and manifest his speciall presence with and in his Ordinances and providences among them hence being a God to any and Gods dwelling with them are coupled together Exod. 29. 45. Lev. 26. 11 12 Rev. 21. 3. 3 That hee will tender them deliverances as their federall right and bee really forward to give such deliverances from all sorts of miseries and from the causes of the same yea actually to worke such deliverances so far as is meet and sutable to their present conditions hence God his being a God to any and his removing sad mournfull thoughts from any are joyned Revel 21. 4. see Levit. 26. 41. 42. 45. Deliverances from common providences are common to all even Pagans but not such as spring from the vertue of the Covenant Zach. 9. 11. 4 so as to give to such an externall covenant right at least as to temporall blessings hence giving Canaan and his being a God to them joyned Gen. 17. 5. 7. 8. see Psal 111. 5. so to spirituall mercies as justification Jer. 31. 33. 51. Adoption 2 Cor. 6. 16. 18. also owning after death Exod. 3. 6. compared with Luke 20. 37 38. and glory after all hence as to the former so to this is joyned God his being a God to any Heb. 11. 6. All this is included as by vertue of Gods covenant offered to such as hee is a God to yea and as that which according to men and as men are in charitie to judge is with all the visible right of such Albeit the former two senses suffice to the visible administration of the covenant as their right in that God doth hold forth that hee is a God to such in covenant to whom hee giveth his ordinances and with whom hee vouchsafeth his presence therein as their externall covenant right 3. By the condition propounded and promised to adult Abraham with whom God was now in this solemne wise to enter into this Covenant not with him alone but with his scil the exercise of faith and Evangelicall uprightnesse or perfection Walke before mee and bee upright or perfect Vers 2. And I will make my Covenant between mee and thee Vers 4. as for mee behold my covenant is with thee c. this is my part of the covenant that was thine and Vers 7. I will establish my covenant betweene mee and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations c. Now that the same covenant is to us since Christs ascension appeares by the former in that it being the covenant of grace it is an everlasting covenant hence Gen. 17. 3. and Heb. 13. 20. hence too when God would expresse the matter of his Covenant since Christs incarnation hee useth and annexeth the old phrase and forme of promise I will be a God to such or such 2 Corin. 6. 18. Heb. 8. 10. Jer. 31. 1. spoken in reference to our times So when speaking of the Jewes and their children which hereafter are to come into Church estate actually he useth the same phrase Ezek. 37. 25. 27. compared Hence the same language in mentioning new Jerusalems condition priviledge I will be a God to them I will set my tabernacle among them Revel 21. 3. The Covenant then of the Gospell hath outward priviledges of Gods tabernacle annexed as well as Abrahams Covenant
promise as invested or Church promise or covenant unto right to the seale or to shew that albeit Gentile beleevers did not partake of the initiatory seale of the covenant yet having the promise they therefore have the seale in Abraham their father albeit they never are nor may bee sealed in their persons the Apostles discourse cleareth it to bee otherwise his scope being not to infringe any Gospel right to the Gospell seale but to take off any reasoning in point of justification from any work of the Law considered apart from Christ as the five first verses evince and because that of circumcision was chiefely gloried in by the Jewes hee taketh off any reasoning that way in opposition to faith which is all in all rather in point of justification whether of Jewes or Gentiles for which end Abrahams example in the way and manner of his justification is propounded as verse 9 10 11 12 13. declare as for the sealing of Abrahams beleevers children the Gentiles in Abrahams sealing if that were intended as much might have been affirmed of the beleevers Jewish children of Abraham as they were such and so the circumcising of such Jewes at least had been more then needed so farre forth Yea but the Jewes were commanded to be circumcised true and so were the Gentiles to be baptized yea but they were to be circumcised when Infants yea and when adult too in case as Joshua 5. and in that case at least many of them being actuall beleevers Joshua 5. and 6. compared with Heb. 11. 30. might have pleaded exemption as being quatenus beleever circumcised in the circumcision of their father Abraham It was not then spoken at all to weaken the bond to an initiatory sealing of Gentiles but to that initiatory sealing up of the covenant to them by circumcision of the foreskin of their flesh thus much by the way in answer to what some thus object But to returne to the proofe of that propounded let us shew that even in the dayes since the time of the fathers before Christs time such children mentioned were are and will be eyed by divine approbation as covenant and Church-seed of Abraham God hath promised to blesse the inchurched nations in Abrahams seed Christ behold Christ by an outward Symbole testifying that the little ones of inchurched visible beleevers are in Church account such witnesse that act of his and his offence that any such should bee hindred from any approach to him in the use of any meanes to attaine at least externally that blessing of him the promised seed Luke 18. 15 16. 7. with Marke 10. 16. hence in the purer dayes of the Gospel It was of old prophesied that such children should bee accounted the seed which the Lord hath blessed aswell as their parents should come under that account by the Gospelled Gentiles Esay 61. 9. yea God himselfe expresseth his account as of such parents so of their children to be such Church and covenant seed both are under one account so far forth Esay 65. 23. besides that if such parents suppose Jewes or Gentiles be Abrahams spirituall seed Anabaptists will grant then are their children also the parents being not meerely abstractively considered the covenant seed Gen. 17. 7. but as in reference to their children with them for the seed of Abraham to whom the covenant Gen. 17. 7. is made is the seed in their generations which necessarily imply and suppose as the parents generating so the children begotten of them the parents make not the generation alone nor the children alone but joyntly considered together Here Anabaptists sever the subject parties taken into the covenant consideration they agree it 's Abraham and his spirituall seed but leave out that notation of the seed scil seed in their generations the proselyte gentiles in Abrahams house they were not his carnall seed why are they then sealed but as they were rather Abrahams spirituall and Church seed Yea but their babes also have the visible seale of Abrahams covenant yet are they not his fleshly seed nor yet are they his actuall beleeving seed and yet have they the feale of Abrahams seed surely then in and with their parents they are Abrahams Church and spirituall seed You will say God commanded them to be sealed and therefore sealed Answ Suppose it so yet God commanded their circumcision to be on them also his covenant or the Sacramentall signe of that his covenant sealed to Abraham to his seed in their generation Gen. 17. 7. 9 10 11 12 13. either then they which in one sense were not of his seed or loynes v. 12. yet were of his covenant and Church seed vers 7. or else God solemnly enjoyned a seale to a blanke or a seale to no covenant of his no other covenant being then in mention to bee sealed by circumcision which was enjoyned to bee his covenant or the Sacramentall signe of his covenant vers 11 12 13. Yea but they partaked not of the covenant many of them at least in their Infancy Answ If yee speake of saving actuall efficacy upon them then neither did many others no not of the elect seed which lived to maturitie of yeares so partake of the covenant in their Infancy nor doth that hinder but that circumcision in the nature of it and in the institution of it was a visible seale of the covenant of grace that which Moses phraseth touching circumcision that it was a signe of the covenant Paul explaineth that it was a seale of the righteousnesse of faith scil not so much subjective as objective Rom. 4. The baptisme of Simon Magus was in the nature of it and in Gods institution a visible seale of the most spirituall part of the covenant and yet did not Iscariot and Magus partake of the spirituall part of the Covenant It is peculiar to the elect to bee in the covenant in respect of participation of the saving efficacy of it Rom. 9. 6 7 8. But it is common to Iscariot and reprobates adult or Infants to bee externally in the covenant in the face of the Church as verse 4. of which before But as for the visible seale it selfe whether to elect or reprobate to such as partake of the spirituall good of the covenant or not this varieth not nor multiplyeth nor nullifieth the nature of the seale The nature of it depends on God the author not upon the sealed persons worthinesse or unworthinesse sex or age Circumcision was not covenants but one and the same covenant ex natura rei nor was it a part but the covenant even the whole covenant Sacramentally to elect or reprobate Infant or adult circumcised The commandement of God did not put or cause any difference but injoyned it all equally to all sorts The covenant sealed was but one not two covenants albeit God did hold forth varietie of covenant blessings as doth the Gospell some more common to all and some more peculiar to a few and so the seale it selfe was to Infant and adult
into such an estate Gal. 3. 27 28 29 were none but true beleevers and elect ones in that Church baptized for all that were baptized are said to bee one in Christ as having put on Christ and if Christ then Abrahams seed either then there were none but elect ones true beleevers in those Churches which were absurd and crosse to the Scriptures before named or if there were any hypocrites or reprobates in that Church they were left unbaptized which were as absurd to avow it for how knew they so exactly to distinguish of such divine secrets in so infallible a way were they Gods to know the secret guile of hearts Now if not unbaptized then they also in baptisme putting on Christ and putting on Christ being one with Christ and so Christs and being Christs were Abrahams seed now A. R. must conte with us to say that when 't is said that all baptized persons put on Christ Gal. 3. 27. it was verified in generall of them all Sacramentally and Ecclesiastically and so when said to bee all one in Christ and to bee Christs and Abrahams seed and all children of the promise and of Jerusalem which is above c. hee must distinguish of persons being such in foro dei and of persons which are such in foro facie ecclesiae visibilis In the former sense onely the elect amongst them were such in the latter sense all in common sound and unsound members of the Church they were such and that the Apostle speakes such things of them in common not by a meere infallible Apostolicall dictate and sentence as concluding them to bee all such savingly but ministerially to hold forth what such as members of Christ as head of the visible Church were Ecclesiastically Object But will it not bee said that whereas Gen. 17. 7. maketh but two subjects of the covenant God made scil Abraham and his seed which Paul expounds to bee beleevers wee by our doctrine doe make three subjects and parties Abraham and beleevers and the Infant seed of both Answ To which I answer that wee doe not make three such distinct subjects now any more then of old there was made before Christ was incarnated then Abraham and his beleevers growne children and the Infant seed of both made but Abraham and his seed and so is it with us Secondly that the covenant being made with Abraham and his seed Abraham sustaining the person of all beleevers Jewes and Gentiles which in a sense also were his seed in that covenant hence therefore the covenant still is onely between Abraham and his seed CHAP. IIII. Sect. I. Touching the Explication of Luke 18. 15 16 17. ANother Scripture holding forth the Federall and Ecclesiasticall right and holinesse of inchurched visible beleevers little ones is Luke 18. 15 16 17. where the Lord affirmeth of the children offered to him by those pious minded parents that of such is the kingdome of God as Matthew hath it Chap. 19. of such is the kingdome of heaven which is here taken for the visible Church so Matth. 8. 11. 12. and 13. 24. and it seemeth evident from Luke 18. that hee mentioneth the kingdome of God three wayes First a kingdome of which such Infants and such like persons are namely as subjects Secondly a kingdome which such actuall subjects of that kingdome doe receive Thirdly a kingdome unto which in an ordinary way and meanes they come to enter The first is meant of the visible not of the invisible Church and of them as members of the former and not so properly of the latter touching which let it bee remembred that this was not a bare temporary and present charge in reference barely to those very children and onely to that very present approach to Christ but did respect after approches of such like persons unto Christ hee saith not suffer these little children to come at this time to mee for of these is the Kingdome of God but indefinitely rather suffer little ones scil of this sort such as these are to come to mee nor would A. R. and others which apply it to such like persons for humilitie c. restraine it to the occasionall act at that time but inlarge it in reference to any such persons at any time in a like case that they should not bee hindred from Christ Now as for the members of the invisible Church as such they are invisible and fall not under the proper cognizance of the sons of men to know which or where they are and to suppose an injunction of not hindring their approach to Christ unlesse they came under a visible respect of members of the visible Church that they might bee discerned and it might bee knowne how and when and in whom this rule of suffering such to come to Christ were kept or broken it were very incongruous and it 's a very improbable conjecture that Christ spake thus of these very Infants by an act of divine knowledge of them to bee the elect of God as if a company of children should bee by an unwonted providence singled out to bee brought to him which were every one of them elected to eternall life and not any of them in a contrary estate And by the latitude of the extent of Christs speech as before wee shewed in reference to after and other times and examples of like nature as to the present case it appeares hee neither spake thus as God or as a meere extraordinary inspired Prophet but delivered as in ordinary administration of the mind of God as at other times an ordinary rule of ordinary practise and use afterwards in reference not barely to those very little ones then brought but to others like them wherefore such evasions of C. B. in his fourth answer to this place are frivolous And why should there bee such startling at this place as if it were uncouth doctrine that children of inchurched members should be counted subjects of Gods kingdom or members of his visible Church the Jews children as well as parents which were cast out together Matth. 8. 11 12. were surely in that kingdome together out of which they came to bee cast afterwards the uncircumcised man child was of the people or Church of God in visible account else not cut off from his people in that case of neglect Gen. 17. 14. and in the purer dayes of the Gospell yet expected the children are put under David or Christ their Prince as King and head and Lord of his visible Church as well as the parents as before wee shewed from Ezek. 37. 25 26 27. and God accounted them even in very corrupt time children of his covenant spouse or visible Church Thy children which thou barest to mee Ezekiel 16. 8. 20 21. 23. witnesse the setting to of the initiatory Church seale of circumcision to those children of Abraham Isaac and Jacobs loynes and no wonder in that they were all interested in the covenant of grace as invested with Church-covenant which is even the very
that the hearers were presently capable of all points of the doctrine of Christ which is most unlikely Christ himselfe did not take such a course with his owne Apostles nor were they capable of it John 16. 12. Yea by the leave of the objectors since they were to hold forth by this solemne injunction of Christ whatsoever Christ had commanded indefinitely which were not meerely personall commands they must amongst other such commands of his hold forth the doctrine of his touching the interest of the little ones of pious minded persons pressing after and prising of his blessing of their children The kingdome is of such not meerely of those very persons or babes but of others of like parents c. and his solemne command upon that ground of their interest in Gods kingdome that his Apostles should not hinder them but suffer the approach of such unto him in any externall way whereof they are capable and for which they are fit as many of our Divines have pleaded thence that they are for baptisme Seventhly to that argument from the exposition of baptizing into the name of the Father c. scil in invocating his name as Paul was bid to doe Act. 22. to this I say if Paul was bid to doe so yet doth not that prove that that injunction was ever intended to bee the explication of being baptized into Christs name that is being baptized so as then personally and actually to call upon his name into which the person was baptized when Paul in 1 Cor. 1. 13. saith were yee baptized into the name of Paul will it thus bee expounded that is when you were baptized did you call upon Pauls name if any doe so it is new light as they call it For I never yet heard of that explication of it albeit of others but if that bee the rule that the persons baptized must make their prayers personally and particularly to God when they are baptized then did those women of Samaria Acts 8. make their personall prayers before the publique assembly which I suppose none will affirme and if they will not then the rule of baptisme was not attended by Philip which were as absurd or that was no rule mentioned nor was it possible that those 3000. baptized in one day should arise each of them and call upon the name of the Lord as they were baptized Some would bee longer in prayer if others would bee short and who would limit or confine them just to such an expence of time and no more and if Peter would have parcelled out the time for that end amongst them yet he wanted much time for all and each of them to arise and call thus on Gods name SECT III. THe coast being thus cleared I may I hope now passe on the more freely from interruption to what I intend concerning Matth. 28. And first I say in the generall the strict of thâ—se words had reference to the inchurching of the first Gentiles and so Marks relation which our opposites make parallel herewith evinceth as Marke 16. 17 18. doth shew unlesse any will say those signes and miracles endured ever since as of use in particular visible Churches and so now hold and will hold to the worlds end Secondly I say this had reference in the generall to the Jewish nation that when as they onely were of the visible schoole and under the doctrine discipline of Christ the Prophet of his Church as speaking by his spirit in their Prophets and Teachers and as acting in the Church guides and officers by some influence of his authoritie c. now not one nation and people but all nations the partition wall being broken downe are to bee called unto the fellowship of the promise or covenant and the initiatory seale of it Acts 1. 38 39. not as formerly circumcision but baptisme not males onely but without distinction of sexes not of such a strict day and age as eight dayes old but indefinitely whether elder or younger but that our opposites make bold to goe so farre as to say not now Infants but onely adult persons they were best be on better grounds then yet I see lest the rebuke of Christ light on them also so far forth to hinder the approach of beleevers Infants to him nor will their rule of beleevers Ergo onely such hold as before we shewed or that of the affirmative including the negative no more then the affirmative Hee that calls on the name of the Lord shall bee saved or Hee that labours must not eate includeth each its negative that hee which calleth not on Gods name as no Infant doth or hee that laboureth not as no Infant can shall not bee saved or eate and so all Infants must perish and famish And when I say it hath reference to the Jewish nation I intend it onely thus far that looke as none but covenant and inchurched parents and their children were initiatorily sealed then by circumcision so no others are now in ordinary Church administration to bee baptized then the inchurched parts in and of the nations Thirdly I say Christ prefacing that ground to this commission scil his soveraigne power over not his generall kingdome of the world but over his speciall kingdome of his Church especially that which is or shall bee in the whole earth hee intendeth the execution of this commission to have reference to all such as may at least externally bee brought under that estate and account of members in that his kingdome according to their severall capacities of either or both the branches of the particulars in the commission Fourthly Discipling I take in a Scripture latitude by nations discipled I understand not all the numericall and individuall persons in every nation where the Gospel commeth but the specificall parts of the nations scil all sorts of persons in that nation albeit not all and every person of each sort SECT IIII. THese things premised whereas Anabaptists doe affirme that no Infants but adult persons onely are to bee baptized according to any rule of Christ I say that that sort of persons scil the Infants of inchurched beleevers are to bee baptized as well as that sort of persons scil Adult persons making personall and particular profession and confession of their faith c. and that from the force of Matth. 28. 19 20. My reasons are First Taken from the subject to bee discipled and baptized by commission scil all nations and therefore at least all the specificall parts of the nations all sorts of persons in the nations but not all of every sort If it bee denied that neither all individuall persons nor yet so much as all sorts of persons scil some little ones and babes male and female as well as some adult persons of both sexes I would know why the collective nations are mentioned under that title of nations rather then under that of growne persons of the nations when God Gen. 12. promiseth that all nations shall bee blessed in Christ all sorts of
mischiefe of restrayning baptisme to certaine times of the yeare in cold countries and sundry other sad consequencies of such a course might bee propounded but thus much for the Major The Minor of Mr. Bs. Syllogisme is weake also since some which hold paedobaptisme yet baptize by dipping therefore wee shall thus retort Mr. Bs. Syllogisme Baptisme by dipping is the baptisme of Christ but with sundry Ministers baptisme of Infants is baptisme by dipping therefore with them at least baptisme of Infants is the baptisme of Christ so contradictory are Mr. Bs. reasonings to his own principles And thus much bee spoken from the solid grounds of Scripture to that part of the controverted case touching Infants Baptismall Right PART III. CHAP. I. Sect. I. Generall consideration of the eight Propositions HAving seene before what defensive and offensive weapons the Armory of the Scripture affords us for the just vindication of the controverted Title of the little ones of inchurched visible beleevers unto the Covenant and Baptisme the initiatory seale thereof the globe of contention is againe cast by sundry and a challenge is made that laying by a little those spirituall weapons of our warfare which indeed are mighty through God to cast downe all the specious Logismes reasonings of the sonnes of men against Christ in the doctrine of his free grace and Covenant and initiatory seale thereof wee should try it out at other weapons even humane testimonies and authorities And besides other darings of us this way the Author or Authors of that Pamphlet entitled The plaine and well grounded treatise concerning Baptisme give out great words this way and even conclude the victory before the fight For my owne part I must confesse my selfe a very puny and too too unskilfull at such weapons yet I shall God willing adventure to accept the challenge and make a little tryall of their skill not doubting but when an essay shall bee made albeit by a learner there will bee some able seconds to take up the cause when I have laid it downe But to leave Prefacing and fall to worke The substance of the booke is laid downe in these eight Propositions 1 That Christ commanded his Apostles and servants of the holy Ghost first of all to preach the Gospel and make Disciples and afterwards to baptize those that were instructed in the faith in calling upon and confessing the name of God His proofs out of Scripture are Matth. 28. 19. Mark 16. 15 16. Luke 24. 45. John 4. 1 2. Acts 22. 16. This proposition might passe for the most part as current allowing a latitude in the word Disciples and understanding it of such as were baptized meerely in their owne right and taking that phrase calling upon the name of God as not alwayes the present act of the persons baptized at the instant of their baptisme but rather of the Minister baptizing nor doth the instance of Paul Act. 22. 16. prove this latter It being absurd even in adult persons to suppose it thus in that example of the Samaritan woman that they should in the open face of the Congregation when they were baptized make their personall and particular prayers Acts 8. 12. or that every one of those 3000. baptized that day Acts 2. 41. made their severall prayers for if it werâ— essentiall to the Ordinance to make such personall prayers since there is no stint how long or how much they should utter in calling upon Gods name the Apostles had need to have spoken severally to them that you must not bee long the time is short and if they had taken that paines yet many dayes would have beene needfull to such a worke It was not possible to bee dispatched that very day As for the other Scriptures they have been else-where considered The second Proposition that the Apostles and servants of the Holy Ghost have according to the Commandement of the Lord Jesus Christ first of all taught and then afterwards those that were instructed in the mysteries of the Kingdome of God were baptized upon the confession of their faith Proofes out of Scripture 1 Cor. 1. 17. How this is a Proof I see not for if hee alwayes preached before hee baptized it might easily have been replyed Yes Paul if God sent you to baptize any he sent you also to preach for you are to preach alwayes to all persons that you baptize before you doe baptize them why therefore doe you say you were not sent to baptize but to preach the Gospel since with the one you do the other The other proofs 1 Cor. 3. 6. and 4. 15. are somewhat farre fetched and strained but I will not stick there Heb. 6. 1 2. is as well applyed by Authors Calvin Beza c. as grounds of Paedobaptisme those being the heads of Catechising containing the summe of Christian Doctrin scil profession of faith and repentance of the articles of which Doctrine an account was demanded of adult Pagans and Jewes at the time of their baptisme and therefore called the Doctrine of Baptismes alluding in the plurall word to the many typicall washings in use of old among the Hebrewes or Jewes but from baptized Infants the same was called for when they were solemnely admitted to full Church Communion and declared so to bee by the Elders commending them therein to God by prayer And hence the same Doctrine is called also by the name of the Doctrine of Imposition of hands Amongst which articles of that Doctrin two are singled out as containing the rest scil the resurrection of the flesh and eternall judgement See Calvin and Beza in Locum His next proofe Heb. 10. 22. I let passe In the next proofe Acts 2. 36 38. 41. I observe how craftily the 39th Vers is left out unmentioned wherein the strength of argument on our part doth consist Acts 8. 36 37 38. and 10. 47 48. and 16. 31. to 34. But why is that example of Lydia here left out and her houshold but that it speakes too broadly that albeit the Apostles sometimes required confession of some persons which they baptized yet not alwayes of all sorts of persons as that one example witnesseth His other Scripture is that Acts 18. 8. but of all these consideration is elsewhere had This Proposition with the limitations formerly mentioned may passe supposing it not understood exclusively that such as they baptized were such therefore they baptized none other but such which is a non sequitur 3 Proposition That after the Apostles time by the ancient fathers in the primitive Church who observed and followed the Ordinance of Christ and the example of the Apostle the people were commonly first instructed in the mysteries of faith and after that they were taught they were baptized upon confession of the same This Proposition sano sensu might passe also understanding that that was the Ordinance of Christ and practise of the Apostles so farre as concernes growne persons baptisme but yet that was not all intended in the one nor practised by the
that their Infants they carried in their armes or led in their hands lost that which they had gotten in the beginning of their birth when the day of judgement comes they will say wee have done nothing neither did we leaving the meate and the cup of the Lord hasten willingly to profane defilements c. Thus farre Mr. B. out of Cyprian Then it seemes in Cyprians time Infants were partakers of the Lords Supper as well as of baptism that birth wherein they had first got that which at the heathen Altars they lost scil that good they got by it which Sacramentally was their birth that is new birth for they rather added to what they got in their naturall birth scil sinne then lost at these sacrifices If in this Epistle Infants baptisme bee thus intimated why saith Mr. B. a little before as a ground of his challenge of his Epistle to Fidus that he findes it mentioned but once he found what was in this Epistle de Lapsis too why else mentioneth hee the same and if both were the errours of Cyprian and the rest then Cyprians judgement was for it surely albeit it is supposed hee erred in it and why then is Baronius brought in to prove it was not Cyprians judgement when Mr. B. hath assayed to prove it that it was his errour was that the errour of Cyprians judgement the which he never held but yet let us heare what Baronius can say to it Now I confesse Baronius hath this passage verbatim which Mr. B. quoteth onely he hath not Mr. B's Parenthesis that it was spoken of Infants Baptisme the Page is a little mistaken it is not Page 398. but Page 415. but Mr. B. is quite out in this application of that passage which is mentioned in reference onely to the controversie about the baptisme of heretiques which hee wresteth grossely as if intended of the matter of baptisme of Infants and if Mr. B. had but read Baronius a few lines before hee would never thus have in print falsified an authors Testimony Baronius discoursing about Traditions brings in Pope Stephen using that weapon in the case of baptisme of heretiques against Cyprian who erred therein scil that it being by tradition received that the Baptisme of heretiques might in case bee valid nothing should bee acted contrary to that tradition as it was by Cyprian and the other Bishops with him nihil innovetur nisi quod traditum est agatur scil saith Baronius quoting Stephens words and after subjoyneth If Cyprian had been sure that scil that doctrine mentioned about the validitie of Heretiques baptisme had been an Apostolicall tradition as Stephen urgeth it to bee and not contrary to holy Scriptures according to sound and sincere opinion without doubt saith Baronius hee had rested in it and for this end hee quoteth Cyprians 74. Epistle ad Pompeium contra Epist Steph. as opening the case intended where Cyprian himselfe writeth that fragment of Stephens Epistle nihil innovetur c. as urged against him in the businesse of the baptisme of Heretiques and Euseb lib. 7. eccles cap. 2. and 3. speakes of the case betwixt Stephen and Cyprian out of Letters of Dionysius Alexandrinus about it citing it as the great question then moved scil whether such as returned from any heresie should bee purged by baptisme In that the custome was to receive such onely by prayer and imposition of hands And addes cap. 3. that Cyprian hee held that such as returned from errour were no other way to bee purged then by baptisme But Stephen mentioned that nothing in this case should be innovated besides that old tradition scil of receiving such againe onely by prayer and imposition of hands where Mr. B. comparing the place in Baronius with this in Eusebius may fully satisfie himselfe in his printed errours But to come yet closer verily Stephen Bishop of Rome that was so inraged against Cyprian for that he brought in that innovation of rebaptizing persons that were baptized by heretiques that hee writ hee would have no Church communion with such as did rebaptise all sorts of heretiques as you may perceive by the Epistle of Dionysius to Xistus Stephens successour Euseb l. 7. c. 3 4 5. hee would have expressed as much violence against Cyprian and his Bishops with him for that which they determined in the case of Paedobaptisme if that had beene accounted an innovation in those times or contrary to Apostolicall tradition as hee thought the other was or that as the treatise would assay to prove from Ruffinus upon the Symboll that the custome at Rome was to baptize such as made confession of the articles of the Symbol and so not Infants no assuredly it was otherwise in Rome then they baptized Infants as well as others else Cyprian had heard of it to purpose from this Roman bishop and besides the story of Lucius and Elcutherius long before Stephens time sheweth what was the practise at Rome surely how ever some snapper at Origens Testimony who was about 20. yeeres before this for saying Infants baptisme was delivered to the Church from the Apostles yet if it had beene thought otherwise in Cyprians time within a while after other Bishops would have withdrawne the right hand of fellowship for innovating contrary or besides Apostolicall Tradition But to returne to Mr. B. if hee scruple Cyprians Epistle to Fidus hee may I thinke satisfie himselfe if hee consider Jeroms testimony for it in the forequoted place Also that testimony for it from the fifth Councell of Carthage viz. Chap. 6. citeth this Epistle of Cyprian ad Fidum so doth Austin often not onely in his 28th Epistle to Jerome but Sermon the 14. upon the words of the Apostle so in his first booke de pecc merit remiss and in his third booke also c. 5. hee citeth that Epistle against Pelagius verily if there had been any such question imagined in those dayes of the spuriousnesse of that Epistle Pelagius and his followers would soon have blunted that weapon as oft as sharpned against them But some will say here is just the proverb fulfilled Aske my fellow whether I am a theefe Austin was as rotten and corrupt in his principles about Paedobaptisme as was Cyprian Cyprian looked at them as incurring eternall judgement that were not baptized so did hee oft urging Iohn 3. 5. 6. 53. hee thought all were to bee baptized whether of beleevers or otherwise so did Austin hee thought Infants had faith and that because of originall sinne conveyed therefore to bee baptized according to that testimony of Origens Propter hoc c. For this even because of originall sinne they must be baptized c. To this I answer as before admit Austin held out that upon Corrupt grounds so did he hold the administration of Baptisme to adult persons upon grounds of necessitie thereof to salvation and purging away sin yea the Lords Supper too as so necessary to growne persons John 6. 53. also yet none will make these ordinances